Darth Angelus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 477
I am not sure if this should go into the "Science / Nature" or "World Issues" forum, as it concerns a bit of both
Ok, I had a little thought, or perhaps a slightly weird technical observation, of how legal matters are determined, when put against stuff coming out of sciences.
Now, I am not schooled in law myself, but one thing I am fairly certain of is that in western tradition of law, things are (meant to be) strictly defined, leaving little room for arbitrary decisions. After all, fair rulings and equal treatment under the law would rely on similar situations being ruled similarly, rather than subject to whims and personal interpretations from the jury.
Therefore, the law is written in a quite formal way, so as to minimise vagueness and ambiguity.
Of course, as I pointed out, I have not studied law myself, so I can only express what I perceive the the general intention of law to be in layman’s terms. If anyone schooled in law thinks this is an incorrect interpretation of the intention, and would correct me or add something, feel free to do so, of course!
However, I do believe the law can and does leave certain aspects informal, at least from a very strict technical perspective. I believe it relies on those making legal rulings understanding what certain things mean, without necessarily making a totally formal, technical and unambiguous definition of what something means, when doing so would seem redundant, because it is clear-cut what is intended, anyway.
Let me make this example:
Speed limit in traffic.
In physics, there is no universal preference for any inertial frame of reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Special_relativity
"Einstein's theory of special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames,…"
Unless I am completely mistaken, what this means is that in both Einstein’s and Newton’s physics, the following goes:
If I were to drive 60 mph (approx. 96.6 km/h)* on a road where 40 mph (approx. 64.4 km/h) is allowed, I could look at it from a inertial frame of reference where my car is being still, and the road and world around it (and me) is moving 60 mph in the opposite direction.
To put it in other words, the inertial frame or reference in which my car is still (0 mph) and the world moves at 60 mph in the opposite direction is equivalent to the one in which my car moves at 60 mph and the world around it is still, in physics. Please correct me if I have misunderstood that!
Here is the thing. In practice, I could obviously not use that as legal defence, in case I got caught. The inverse is also true, of course. Someone who drives below or at the speed limit* could not be legally deemed guilty of driving too fast, based on the fact that the Earth rotates and orbits around the sun, so any car could be argued to be moving at a speed way exceeding the legal speed limit (from a certain inertial frame of reference).
This leads to the question, does the legal text state explicitly anywhere that it is the inertial frame of reference in which the road or surface of the Earth is still that counts, when determining driving speed for legal purposes? I can't say I know for sure, but I seriously doubt it, simply because I doubt anyone would deem such a precise, technical definition of driving speed would be necessary. In practice, for legal purposes, there is no real ambiguity in what driving speed is, regardless of how there arguably may be an ambiguity if you look at it.
For the purposes of determining how fast someone drives, in order to decide whether or not they are legally guilty of exceeding the legal speed limit, it is most definitely the road and the Earth’s surface that is considered to be still, and the inertial frame of reference where that is so is considered to be the valid one, even though it probably isn’t worded like that explicitly (rather, it (probably) uses speed camera measurements, but that would yield the same result).
What I am trying to say unless a legal text explicitly states this is how driving speed is to be determined, then there is still a slight aspect of the application of the law which is left informal. Unless driving speed is formally defined (in a way which could have been written in a physics book, and which would of course include which inertial frame of reference is to be used) in the legal text, one tiny aspect is left strictly technically and scientifically (but not practically) ambiguous, and it is assumed that the people who decide whether someone drove too fast understands what the lawmaker intended (which granted is very obvious in this case, and you can assume that with very few exceptions, anyone will realise that it is the speed camera measurement which applies).
In short, there will be cases like this and others which are similar, in which the practical ambiguity (when interpreted by humans with the slightest bit of common sense) is nonexistent, but in which there would exist a strictly technical or scientific ambiguity like this one, nonetheless.
The question is, in a case like this, is the law satisfied that things are unambiguous enough without the strict scientific or technical definition (I think the answer is yes), or does it go all the way to eliminate even that last tiny bit of ambiguity?
Please note that this is not an argument that precise definitions of things (as they would have been done in the relevant scientific field) are always necessary in legal texts! By contrast, I do believe that laws only need to be formally defined enough to be unambiguous in practice (and going further than that would be clunky). Besides, it might not always be possible for a lawmaker (who is probably legally schooled but may not be so in the other scientific field in question) to know when there is an ambiguity in the law text they have written, when looking at it through said other scientific field
What do you think? Exactly how far would a legal text go in defining what is intended by said law, in cases where eliminating all technical and/or scientific ambiguities would require (far) more than eliminating practical ambiguities?
* As a flawless instrument in my car or a flawless speed camera by the road would measure it.
Ok, I had a little thought, or perhaps a slightly weird technical observation, of how legal matters are determined, when put against stuff coming out of sciences.
Now, I am not schooled in law myself, but one thing I am fairly certain of is that in western tradition of law, things are (meant to be) strictly defined, leaving little room for arbitrary decisions. After all, fair rulings and equal treatment under the law would rely on similar situations being ruled similarly, rather than subject to whims and personal interpretations from the jury.
Therefore, the law is written in a quite formal way, so as to minimise vagueness and ambiguity.
Of course, as I pointed out, I have not studied law myself, so I can only express what I perceive the the general intention of law to be in layman’s terms. If anyone schooled in law thinks this is an incorrect interpretation of the intention, and would correct me or add something, feel free to do so, of course!
However, I do believe the law can and does leave certain aspects informal, at least from a very strict technical perspective. I believe it relies on those making legal rulings understanding what certain things mean, without necessarily making a totally formal, technical and unambiguous definition of what something means, when doing so would seem redundant, because it is clear-cut what is intended, anyway.
Let me make this example:
Speed limit in traffic.
In physics, there is no universal preference for any inertial frame of reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Special_relativity
"Einstein's theory of special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames,…"
Unless I am completely mistaken, what this means is that in both Einstein’s and Newton’s physics, the following goes:
If I were to drive 60 mph (approx. 96.6 km/h)* on a road where 40 mph (approx. 64.4 km/h) is allowed, I could look at it from a inertial frame of reference where my car is being still, and the road and world around it (and me) is moving 60 mph in the opposite direction.
To put it in other words, the inertial frame or reference in which my car is still (0 mph) and the world moves at 60 mph in the opposite direction is equivalent to the one in which my car moves at 60 mph and the world around it is still, in physics. Please correct me if I have misunderstood that!
Here is the thing. In practice, I could obviously not use that as legal defence, in case I got caught. The inverse is also true, of course. Someone who drives below or at the speed limit* could not be legally deemed guilty of driving too fast, based on the fact that the Earth rotates and orbits around the sun, so any car could be argued to be moving at a speed way exceeding the legal speed limit (from a certain inertial frame of reference).
This leads to the question, does the legal text state explicitly anywhere that it is the inertial frame of reference in which the road or surface of the Earth is still that counts, when determining driving speed for legal purposes? I can't say I know for sure, but I seriously doubt it, simply because I doubt anyone would deem such a precise, technical definition of driving speed would be necessary. In practice, for legal purposes, there is no real ambiguity in what driving speed is, regardless of how there arguably may be an ambiguity if you look at it.
For the purposes of determining how fast someone drives, in order to decide whether or not they are legally guilty of exceeding the legal speed limit, it is most definitely the road and the Earth’s surface that is considered to be still, and the inertial frame of reference where that is so is considered to be the valid one, even though it probably isn’t worded like that explicitly (rather, it (probably) uses speed camera measurements, but that would yield the same result).
What I am trying to say unless a legal text explicitly states this is how driving speed is to be determined, then there is still a slight aspect of the application of the law which is left informal. Unless driving speed is formally defined (in a way which could have been written in a physics book, and which would of course include which inertial frame of reference is to be used) in the legal text, one tiny aspect is left strictly technically and scientifically (but not practically) ambiguous, and it is assumed that the people who decide whether someone drove too fast understands what the lawmaker intended (which granted is very obvious in this case, and you can assume that with very few exceptions, anyone will realise that it is the speed camera measurement which applies).
In short, there will be cases like this and others which are similar, in which the practical ambiguity (when interpreted by humans with the slightest bit of common sense) is nonexistent, but in which there would exist a strictly technical or scientific ambiguity like this one, nonetheless.
The question is, in a case like this, is the law satisfied that things are unambiguous enough without the strict scientific or technical definition (I think the answer is yes), or does it go all the way to eliminate even that last tiny bit of ambiguity?
Please note that this is not an argument that precise definitions of things (as they would have been done in the relevant scientific field) are always necessary in legal texts! By contrast, I do believe that laws only need to be formally defined enough to be unambiguous in practice (and going further than that would be clunky). Besides, it might not always be possible for a lawmaker (who is probably legally schooled but may not be so in the other scientific field in question) to know when there is an ambiguity in the law text they have written, when looking at it through said other scientific field
What do you think? Exactly how far would a legal text go in defining what is intended by said law, in cases where eliminating all technical and/or scientific ambiguities would require (far) more than eliminating practical ambiguities?
* As a flawless instrument in my car or a flawless speed camera by the road would measure it.
